An interesting article at Ars Technica takes a look at some compelling data (the longer-than-normal processor update cycles in Apple's personal computer lineup) and speculates that Apple's enthusiasm for its partnership with Intel might be cooling. Like Apple's soured relationship with once-BFF Google, this may be the result of Intel's increasing activities in the mobile computing space.

I have to second the value of the IBM side of the PPC family. I work on a daily basis with their 64-bit systems on AIX (Power4 on up), and I have been quite pleased with the performance. The architecture is also far cleaner than the x86/AMD64 hydra.

This. Anyone into hardware loves the Power/PPC architecture. No programmer I know "likes" the x86 architecture. The x86-64 is a LITTLE better, but not nearly as nice as any of the RISC processors. Look at an industry that does not need to run legacy x86 software: the PPC is at the heart of all three current generation game consoles.

That's why the comment in the article -

As interesting as AMD's Bulldozer architecture may turn out to be, we've all been burned by processor architectures that seemed awesome in concept but never delivered on their promises. PowerPC, anyone?

- is just nonsense. PPC delivered in spades. Apple switched to Intel for two reasons: Intel gave them a better deal for processors, and it made it easier for Macs to play Windows games... and that second reason is probably more important than the first.

PPC delivered in spades. Apple switched to Intel for two reasons: Intel gave them a better deal for processors, and it made it easier for Macs to play Windows games... and that second reason is probably more important than the first.

I agree with the first point, but I don't see any real push from Apple on the gaming side (and it's been four years since the switch to Intel). If anything, I'd say they continue to be, at best, rather indifferent to gaming on the Mac. Case in point: not even an Nvidia card option on the new Mac Pro. The new iMacs are ATI-only as well.

The G5 was a very good chip when it first appeared in 2003 (I bought an original dual 2 GHz Power Mac G5 -- now retired in favor of a $1000 Hackintosh that outspecs/outruns a Mac Pro priced at $3300), but it ran quite hot and required liquid cooling in its later iterations. Apple's laptop processor at that time, the G4, was stalled at a bus speed of only 167 MHz for nearly 4 years before the Intel laptops were released.

Apple switched to Intel because it gave them processor parity with the rest of the PC industry and there's no way they could put the G5 in their laptops, which have constituted a majority of Macs sold for quite some time now.

Apple switched to Intel because it gave them processor parity with the rest of the PC industry and there's no way they could put the G5 in their laptops, which have constituted a majority of Macs sold for quite some time now.

Ugh - not this laptop myth again! Apple used water-cooling for their desktops because they over-clocked their CPUs, but by the same token, they could have UNDER-clocked the CPUs to put them in laptops. IBM also came out with a low-power version of the G5 right before Apple announced their move to Intel.

Not that low-power in laptops even mattered at the time. They were making laptops at that time using the PRESCOTT CPU! There were enough lap-scorching Intel laptops out at the time that lap protectors were a big item. So let's not hear anymore of this nonsense that "Apple couldn't put a G5 in a laptop." It's just as stupid as people STILL posting jokes about Mac mice having one button.

Look at an industry that does not need to run legacy x86 software: the PPC is at the heart of all three current generation game consoles.

Yea but that has more to do with reducing manufacturing costs with a custom in-order cpu than dropping x86 overhead.

- is just nonsense. PPC delivered in spades. Apple switched to Intel for two reasons: Intel gave them a better deal for processors, and it made it easier for Macs to play Windows games... and that second reason is probably more important than the first.

No they switched because the PPC couldn't deliver when it came to processing/power. Intel was leagues ahead when it came to power efficiency and Jobs couldn't wait for IBM to catch up.

"
- is just nonsense. PPC delivered in spades. Apple switched to Intel for two reasons: Intel gave them a better deal for processors, and it made it easier for Macs to play Windows games... and that second reason is probably more important than the first.

No they switched because the PPC couldn't deliver when it came to processing/power. Intel was leagues ahead when it came to power efficiency and Jobs couldn't wait for IBM to catch up. "

Yes, but the statement about Windows is correct. There are a lot of people who need Windows on their job. A lot more than those who need a Mac, and with an x86 chip Apple can serve both worlds. And Linux and everything else.
People loves Macs, and they're much more prone to buy them if they know they can always run Windows.

IBM - Motorola - Apple had a joint development center in Austin. However, the direction each wanted to take with PPC differed.

I believe IBM wanted to focus more on high-end servers and did not see much value in throwing effort into PPC. Apple was interested in buying low-power client parts to fuel their cool Cube, iMac, and Laptop designs.

Motorola, the other company fabricating PPC, could not keep their fabs tooled for next gen processes. PPC was fairly low volume for them to justify investments I guess. They also had trouble delivering processors (G4 or G5) on time.

So yes PPC delivered in spades - but only certain markets. Desktops - yes in spades. Low-power laptop space - not so great.